Part of me hopes that this person never ends up in the Tribunal again, but I have the unpleasant feeling that he might. And if he does, and the case comes to me, I will probably hit "Punish" again.

It's annoying to miss a point on one that's as clearly punishable as this; I mean, the person's moderately annoying at the start and could be excused...but the behavior at the end of the third case just immediately seals the deal.

Ugh.

The Tribunal works most of the time, but it relies on the people judging the cases to put some effort into it and to KEEP GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE CASES. You can hit "punish" without reading all of them, but you CANNOT pardon without making sure that the accused is truly innocent.

Rant done.

Stayenalive

12-03-2012 03:47 PM

Good point, but your frustration towards the judgement behind the verdict makes me glad the system is working the way it is working.

Edit: Just to clarify, it isn't your place to decide the verdict of a case. It is your job to vote on a verdict. You are more than welcome to make a PSA about the need to read the context of cases, but don't you dare tell me how to vote.

Of course, you have a right to complain about judgments, but I'd seriously recommend you fix that attitude. That kind of attitude is why people complain about the tribunal so much, because there is a tendency that people decide to punish without thinking too much about it.

If game 1 the player is an atrocious jerk, I'm going to punish right then and there. Being a saint in 4 other games is not going to vindicate his atrocious behavior in game 1 - just as living by the highest ethical standards all your life isn't going to factor into the prosecutions case that you slipped up and committed murder one day. It might get a few years off your sentence, but you're going to get punished.

Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty in my book - as I believe it should be. The difference is, you only need to violate the summoner's code once out of up to five games. Once is enough. I'll pardon "mild" violations of the code - up to a point. I'll pardon bad games and cases with accusations of feeding but with no obvious intent to feed revealed. I'll pardon the case where there is only negativity once or twice, but if I see someone call another player a "noob" a dozen times, I'm punishing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HalcyonicHS
(Hozzászólás 32055574)

What. How is that even fair? Isn't innocence presumed over guilt?
, because there is a tendency that people decide to punish without thinking too much about it.

Innocence is presumed over guilt. The OP just needs to find evidence of guilt in one game. He does not need to scour all 5 games and weigh them. The the player was an atrocious jerk in game 1, that's all that's needed to find guilt.

Not being a jerk is easy. There are very few cases where a person who is punished for being a jerk that I believe should be pardoned instead. Of the jerks that are pardoned - they will either improve their behavior or be caught eventually.

The only cases I'm truly concerned about are players who are banned for "primarily having bad games". These are the players who I want to pardon - and want their cases overturned. I have two of these cases in my tribunal log - they are the two most shameful punishes in my entire log. In both cases I voted to pardon.

ClearSkyss

12-04-2012 05:39 AM

tribunal is the way it is. And it will stay like that, be it flawed or not. As for the pardon. All i can say is... lottery luck is all